There are two camps of readers in the historical fiction genre – those who want the story portrayed as accurately as possible and those who don’t care – they just want to be entertained. I fall into the former category, I personally feel history is fascinating enough as it happened, and while I understand there are times when an author has to fill in the gaps in history, I don’t want to be reading *historical entertainments*. That said, if you are going to make up history, puleeeze put it in the author’s notes at the end – you’d be surprised how many people really really think that stuff happened. Market it for what it is, historically made up fluff.
As for books that *diddle* with history, believe it or not I can enjoy them – that is if they are well written and tell me a good story. Barbara Erskine is a great example, her novels are in historical settings but she’s not writing a historical novel – she’s just telling a story . Whether it’s just a story or not, things still need to be well written with characters who act appropriately to the setting- would you not be tossing a book set in the 70s and the MC started texting? Doesn’t fit, does it?
In the end, we all have our own opinions on what we want or don’t want in our reading, as well as the right to express said opinions both good and bad about a book. That way other potential readers have the options to make a better informed book decision, no? So if a critical review of your very very favorite BFF author upsets you, then please just go away and don’t read my blog. No one is forcing you, are they? Shoo, fly.